Sol
Smile
- Jun 30, 2017
- 24,892
- 21,134
Yeah we must do low effortlow effort avatars you say?
yeah, especially with how we choked the previous series w them away, we weren't super optimistic
Yeah we must do low effortlow effort avatars you say?
yeah, especially with how we choked the previous series w them away, we weren't super optimistic
Draw a smiley face on each one of your toes and we'll use that.Yeah we must do low effort
That’s still too much effortDraw a smiley face on each one of your toes and we'll use that.
I would argue they got screwed in that game against the Sharks when Clowe played the puck from the bench on a potential breakaway.The Kings were the first of three Pacific team to clinch a playoff spot in 2012. They simply choked the division title away the last week.
perfect
You absolute mad man.. I love you now.Love it! Shows the spirit of kings not trying at all
Not exactly true. They didn't eke in, they made the playoffs comfortably and were in contention for the divisional title until the last few games of the season. They quit on Terry Murray while Lombardi was waiting on Sutter, which is somewhat similar but the difference is an interim coach that changed nothing vs a top level coach coming in. It's best players were also in their prime.2012 was the same. Kings eked in as an 8th seed and played the president's trophy-winning Canucks
Taylor only had three straight as well. 2000-2002. They also made it in 1998 but missed in ‘99.3 years in a row. Wow, that’s impressive. One more year, and BLuc will match Dave Taylor’s streak of four straight back when we also thirsted to just make the second round.
Not exactly true. They didn't eke in, they made the playoffs comfortably and were in contention for the divisional title until the last few games of the season. They quit on Terry Murray while Lombardi was waiting on Sutter, which is somewhat similar but the difference is an interim coach that changed nothing vs a top level coach coming in. It's best players were also in their prime.
That team was loaded with killers, had an elite checking line, and had a perfect balance on the blueline.
This team is relying on getting Vancouver to have any chance of getting into the second round.
The Kings never quit on Terry Murray.Not exactly true. They didn't eke in, they made the playoffs comfortably and were in contention for the divisional title until the last few games of the season. They quit on Terry Murray while Lombardi was waiting on Sutter, which is somewhat similar but the difference is an interim coach that changed nothing vs a top level coach coming in. It's best players were also in their prime.
That team was loaded with killers, had an elite checking line, and had a perfect balance on the blueline.
This team is relying on getting Vancouver to have any chance of getting into the second round.
How about "hit a wall"?The Kings never quit on Terry Murray.
Maybe your definition of the word "quit" in this context is different than mine, but I hate when people say that.
Not in the Kool Aid sort of way though. More like hit a wall, fallen on the floor and couldn't get up.How about "hit a wall"?
And I'm not talking about Kyle drinking too many Monster energy drinks and smashing some drywall.
I mean, the team went from being out of the playoff race, to one of the best teams in the west after the change.The Kings never quit on Terry Murray.
Maybe your definition of the word "quit" in this context is different than mine, but I hate when people say that.
Why would that mean they quit?I mean, the team went from being out of the playoff race, to one of the best teams in the west after the change.
Because despite the league-wide respect Kopitar gets from people who play with and against him, and the reverence Brown had internally with the org, their imperfect leadership styles apparently means they are not as good as everyone thinks they are, and they are the biggest reasons for when things are wrong with the Kings. Everything will be so much better when they are gone. Or something.Why would that mean they quit?
I think the vast majority of posters around here experienced the cup winning seasons. Once you have that level of success, you become much harder to please.Can anyone remember the last time the Kings made the play offs and there was this much "meh?"
Is it a product of the stupidly raised expectations before the season?
If anyone wants to know what quitting actually is, they can watch PLD. He's done it multiple times.Because despite the league-wide respect Kopitar gets from people who play with and against him, and the reverence Brown had internally with the org, their imperfect leadership styles apparently means they are not as good as everyone thinks they are, and they are the biggest reasons for when things are wrong with the Kings. Everything will be so much better when they are gone. Or something.
They ABSOLUTELY quit on Terry Murray.The Kings never quit on Terry Murray.
Maybe your definition of the word "quit" in this context is different than mine, but I hate when people say that.
Because despite the league-wide respect Kopitar gets from people who play with and against him, and the reverence Brown had internally with the org, their imperfect leadership styles apparently means they are not as good as everyone thinks they are, and they are the biggest reasons for when things are wrong with the Kings. Everything will be so much better when they are gone. Or something.
I’m not replying in disagreement about your view more about leadership.They ABSOLUTELY quit on Terry Murray.
You may never see a more obvious case of a team quitting on a coach than that.
Williams and Richards played for Terry Murray, too. So was Matt Greene and Jarrett Stoll. Guess they're also not real leaders who quit on Murray. Richards also must have quit on Ken Hitchcock and John Stevens in Philadelphia before he came back to be the Kings savior. Surprised they won a cup, let alone two, with such a ragtag group of leaderless misfits..Yeah, the fact that teams with those players never got out of the first round before or after the brief three year period in which they actually were NOT the key leadership figures means nothing, eh?
Those players you mentioned were ingredients in those championships. Every time - LITERALLY EVERY TIME they had the opportunity to succeed without the real leaders they have failed to win even one series - if they even made the playoffs.
The proof is always in the pudding, yet you insist on translating this as an attack on their reputations instead of understanding the truth in that argument. Simple fact is that these were very good players, never great ones.
they were well out of the playoff picture in january until late feb even after they got Carter at the TDL, early march they went on a tear and got in as the 8th seed. the sentiment around this board was extremely 'meh' which was better than the bed-shitting that went on that february. i created an account around that time cause i was sick of seeing all the complaining lmaoNot exactly true. They didn't eke in, they made the playoffs comfortably and were in contention for the divisional title until the last few games of the season. They quit on Terry Murray while Lombardi was waiting on Sutter, which is somewhat similar but the difference is an interim coach that changed nothing vs a top level coach coming in. It's best players were also in their prime.
That team was loaded with killers, had an elite checking line, and had a perfect balance on the blueline.
This team is relying on getting Vancouver to have any chance of getting into the second round.